Some belief systems relegate the negative, or even cast out the
negative [as 'evil' or as 'satan' etc.,] and claim to be concerned
only with the Good or with Love.
The runes seem to be different from this.

Also, if you say we should be somewhere in the "middle", isn't that
tantamount to advocating mediocrity?

Surely the world is made by those who are a force for Good [and by
those who are a force for Bad].

And aren't those in the middle merely carried along by the greater
forces, listing in the wind?

But are the runes just another alphabet like that used in
the "English language" you speak of?
Surely they are more than just a "system of communication" !

The runic Futhark is also a very specific body of symbols.

Indeed it is the latter aspect which makes them magical, not the
former.

So my question is related to the symbolism which is very close to
the darkside, particularly when reversed runes are used.

Also bind-runes can produce some unwanted reversals which 'lurk,' as
it were, and so do wickedness despite good intentions.

I seem to recall a recent book by Karlsson [I think?] which dwelt on
this 'Nightside of the Runes'(?)

Willow, in my defence, I merely asked the question: "if you say that we should be somewhere in the middle"; - wondering by implication whether you thought that this was desirable [your previous tone gave me the impression that you might have thought that it was].

'Balance' itself is problematic if we have only a relative notion of "good" and "bad", for what do we balance between?

Balance itself then becomes a relative question; what may seem 'balanced' to one person may seem 'imbalanced' to another.

However, it seems that the runes do not deal with relative values but rather with absolute ones.
They affirm the values of a traditional tribal society which emphasised the nobility of war and masculine values in general.

Now, by modern standards, these absolutes would be considered 'negative'.

Not only that, but each of these traditional runes has a reversed value which is purely negative.

So 'on balance', are not the runes 'negative' by modern relativistic standards?

All communication implies meaning.

Symbols are used where ordinary communication is inadequate.

Symbols, as well as representing more than themselves [and far more than words], also stand for themselves.

A symbol then has a silent aspect, where it is itself, and is completely autonomous to itself.

Take a symbol like the swastika.

It has been used to communicate many different things throughout the ages, whther by the Trojans, the Greeks, the Buddhists, the Hindus, the Vikings of the Third Reich.
But these various 'communications' do not exhaust the symbol.

The swastika qua symbol still has its own integrity which goes beyond any meaning. It stands for something which cannot be communicated.

There is the very 'isness' of the symbol.

When all the meanings have been forgotten and all the empires have fallen the swastika symbol will still have its own selfhood which defies communication.

Now the same is true of all the runes [the swastika being a bind-rune, and therefore prey to contrary forces].

Each rune, no matter what meaning has been attributed to it by various cultures stands alone in its integrity.


This brings me to the 'negativity' [or to use a theologically loaded term, 'evil'] of the runes.

I say that runes, in their very symbolic essence are more suited to communicate with the dark forces [of evil or negativity if you like] than are other systems.

Compare them to Ogham in this respect.


I want to ask the question [once I have convinced of the primise of my argument] why the runes are so close to the Dark-Side?

Some runemasters using the German 18 Futharkh (sic) in divination actually make 36 runes with 18 reversed runes in their own right.

This embracing of the evil is unknown in many other spiritual disciplines in my view.

The runes must have their own philosophy which has yet to be enunciated or 'communicated' .

Further to recent discussions, rune reversals must be a topic in its
own right.

They bring out certain philosophical questions which rune-masters must
address themselves to if they are to have any depth to their craft.

For example, is a reversal of a rune a completely different rune to the
non-reversed rune?

Or does the non-reversed rune 'contain' its own reversal at all times
[and is therefore ambiguous]?

Is there a reversal for the Ice rune?
Some say that there isn't, but are they not ignoring the reality of the
Poles?
In other words, 'Ice' ['I'] is orientated North in its first aspect and
orientated South in its reversal.

Two questions which need addressing by Vitkis.